How can a sola scriptura proponent know that all revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle?

[joe370]

Actually, the opposite. Has they continued to maintain unity through Tradition and scripture, I would see no need for SS. But as I said above, the early Church, through the councils, DID rightly reflect scripture.

Jon, how about today? Can the Church, through the councils, still, rightly reflect scripture?

 

[joe370]

Why? Most non-Catholics would say: By who’s authority do they teach, interpret scripture and administer the sacraments?

My first response is by the same authority that any communion teaches from.

Jon, all churches, regardless of denomination, teach, interpret scripture, and in some cases administer the sacraments, by Jesus’ authority?

I don’t really see a big difference between the church to which you belong and the church to which I belong, when it comes to authority, which of course stems from the teaching office of the church, rather than the members of the church via private interpretation.

I’m not sure what you mean here, Joe.

I just meant that we both defer to the authority of our respective churches.

So, if you would, please give examples of these verses.

Off the top of my head:

2 Mac 12:45

“For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sin.”

No need to pray for those in heaven, and no use for praying for those poor souls in hell.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, how about today? Can the Church, through the councils, still, rightly reflect scripture?

Yes, and it does. Many of us agree on those first 7 councils - a good starting place for unity, ISTM.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;7593302]Jon, all churches, regardless of denomination, teach, interpret scripture, and in some cases administer the sacraments, by Jesus’ authority?

I think it depends, in part, on one’s definition of The Church. But for Lutherans, we point to the same scripture for the authority of the Church, to bind and loose, etc.

I just meant that we both defer to the authority of our respective churches.

That’s what I thought, but wanted to be sure. Agreed.

Off the top of my head:

2 Mac 12:45

“For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sin.”

No need to pray for those in heaven, and no use for praying for those poor souls in hell.

Gotcha. I’m not sure that this is necessarily an explicit statement of the existence of another place or state (Church Suffering). And some Catholic descriptions of Purgatory I’ve heard lately seem to downplay the “place” aspect.

Father (George H) Tavard showed how purgatory has been understood by Catholics as both a place of punishment and a state of cleansing, perhaps even momentary, at the time of death. Among the mystics, the latter image has greater prominence inasmuch as final purgation means an encounter with the “fire” of divine love which removes the effects of sin on the human person.

usccb.org/comm/archives/2006/06-212.shtml

A momentary cleansing seems to have the same limitations as you reference for prayer for the dead, though Lutherans have always seen a place for this kind of prayer.

JOn

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;7593237]

I guess that is up to each individual to decide. To me, it’s simple: find the church that was founded by Jesus Christ, circa AD 33, in Jerusalem on Pentecost and then adhere to what Martin Luther said:

“I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St, Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”
Martin Luther to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519

Great quote, isn’t it Joe? Do you have a source for what Pope Leo’s response was?

Are you suggesting that, since the church is no longer one and united, the Bible, as the Christians final norm is now necessary for resolving doctrinal disputes? I’m not following you, if in fact that is what you are suggesting?

What I’m suggested is that is the one source we can rely one. I think the agreed upon councils can also be a source for resolving doctrinal disputes, and we in recent decades have come to rely on dialogue based in an honest desire, through the guidance of the Spirit, to reach reconciliation.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

Jon, how about today? Can the Church, through the councils, still, rightly reflect scripture?

Yes, and it does. Many of us agree on those first 7 councils - a good starting place for unity, ISTM.

I agree Jon; that is a good starting point. Which church in the world today, via council, can be trusted to rightly reflect scripture? We can’t really say all of them for there are conflicting interpretations of scripture. ML seems to lean toward the CC on occasion:

*“If the world lasts for a long time, it will again be necessary, on account of the many interpretations which are now given to the Scriptures, to receive the decrees of councils, and take refuge in them, in order to preserve the unity of faith.” Epis. ad. Zwingli (ap. Balmes, p. 423).
*

Great quote, isn’t it Joe? Do you have a source for what Pope Leo’s response was?

It seems that ML wrote it more than a year after the Ninety-Five Theses, and, as far as I can tell, it was written as a result of ML’s meeting with Karl von Miltitz, who was attempting to reconcile ML with the pope, but it doesn’t appear that it was ever sent.

 

[joe370]

Jon…

What I’m suggested is that is the one source we can rely one. I think the agreed upon councils can also be a source for resolving doctrinal disputes, and we in recent decades have come to rely on dialogue based in an honest desire, through the guidance of the Spirit, to reach reconciliation.

Jon, regarding the Catholic Church, you believe that the process for determining the canon was inspired by God, otherwise there would be some doubt as to the authenticity of scripture, and it certainly seems that the same inspiration would be required to decide on what books to include in the bible canon as was required to write the books in the first place, which is certainly in keeping with scripture:

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper,* to be with you forever…**

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.

Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
*
Jon, do you believe that the CC continues to be inspired by God and therefore guided “into all truth” just as the CC was when determining the biblical canon in the 4th century?

 

[mackbrislawn]

You are correct. Lutherans do not indulge in private interpretation. I’ll let the Reformed and others speak for themselves.

This alludes to the question: Whose job is it to interpret scripture? If not private, individual, then whose?

To what, or whom, does scripture belong?

Because when scripture is interpreted, it is for all of Christians, not just oneself. (Unless, of course, one believes in relative truth.)

 

[mackbrislawn]

what bible are you reading brother,of course theres evidence of them using SS,didnt Jesus us it when he was tempted in the desert or anytime he said It is written,didnt the apostles use SS to prove Jesus was the messiah,didnt John the Baptist use it,I guess not

The opposite is the case.

There seems to be a confusion between using scripture and SS.

Jesus used scripture, but using scripture is not the same as using sola scriptura. Jesus was definitely not SS, because He went beyond scripture, and was God’s final revelation. Jesus’ teachings were in addition to scripture, so using Jesus as an example is actually to give a counter-example to SS. To disprove it. Jesus said: “Scripture says this, but I say this…”

Another counter-example is given in the apostles’ use of scripture to prove Jesus as messiah. They used scripture, but not SS! They couldn’t have used scripture alone because scripture didn’t mention Jesus. The good news about Jesus was not in scripture! The good news came from the mouths of the apostles, not scripture. The apostles used current events and the latest news bulletins in addition to scripture. That is, they told the people what actually happened, then used scripture to show by these events that Jesus was the Messiah.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Hey Johnny. Sure, God continues to reveal himself to us everyday, individually and as faith communities in our walk with Christ, but I am referring to revealed truth which was made known to the apostles (apostolic church) - on Pentecost, and passed on to the successors of Jesus’ church, and upon the close of the apostolic age, all revealed truth ceased, which of course does not undermine the development of those doctrinal truths that were revealed to the apostles - eg the Trinity.

Sorry I took so long to respond. I am not sure I can provide a real answer to the question as asked. On Pentecost, Christ’s Apostles were empowered by the Holy Spirit to spread the Gospel message, when the Holy Spirit came upon them. That same Holy Spirit is with the church (believers) today.

Although some non Catholics will sound like that with the death of the last apostle, boom, we had a Bible and that is all we need today to know the truth, you won’t hear me saying that or see me believing that. However, Christ said he would lead his church to all truth. In saying this, he was speaking to the Apostles specifically. I think both Catholics and Protestants agree that the entire deposit of faith was given once for all to the saints (Jude 3).

Its not that the scriptures we all the truth, but that any truth claim must be evaluated by them and be in harmony with them.

 

[Alan55]

First, Alan, SS is a practice, not a doctrine (see above). Perhaps, regarding authority, there was a need to use scripture as the final norm, since those communions that claim Tradition and scripture came to schism and disagreement.

This view is disputed by the existence of Reformation era communions that are sacramental, the Catholic view of our clergy notwithstanding.

The Magisterium has every authority to interpret scripture and administer the sacraments.

You are correct. Lutherans do not indulge in private interpretation. I’ll let the Reformed and others speak for themselves.

As you mentioned Luther, a source, please as to where he said this.

Jon

When I call sola scriptura a “doctrine” I do not mean that it is a dogma, only that it is firmly held and taught. In Roman Catholic teaching, the idea that divine revelation is constituted by scripture and tradition is more than a practice, it is a true doctrine, authoritatively taught by the Magisterium (although, I’m not sure that it’s considered an infallible dogma – perhaps others can confirm). Moreover, whether a doctrine or simply a practice, my point was that sola scriptura does not have a firm basis in scripture.

You are correct to point out that the Lutherans and Episcopalians retain two sacraments, and their understanding of those sacraments is similar (not identical) to that of Roman Catholics. I erroniously collapsed all protestants into the “merely symbolic” camp, which better characterizes Zwingli, Calvin and the Anabaptists and their progeny. Modern-day evangelicals in the U.S. fall in this camp, for example. However, the role of apostolic succession is an important aspect of the Catholic understanding of the role of sacraments as a source of unity and continuity in “one…apostolic” Church. That sense is lost or depreciated in even the most sacramental of protestant churches.

I’m mystifies at your agreement that the Magisterium has the authority to interpret scripture and administer the sacraments. The question is (1) what constitutes the Magisterium and (2) what authority is held by the Magisterium in interpreting scripture and administering and regulating the sacraments. Catholics hold that the Magisterium resides in the successors to the Apostles, that is, the bishops, and particularly with the bishops in communion with the Pope, the bishop of Rome, and not with each individual Christian. Each person must, of course, read, seek to understand, and to apply the scriptures, rightly understood, to their peculiar circumstances. However, as a Catholic, I must defer to the authority of the Pope and my bishop when they provide an authoritative interpretation of the scriptures. In Lutheranism, for example, what constitutes the Magisterium? Luther, the author of various catechisms, treatises such as the “Babylonian Captivity,” “Freedom of the Christian” and “To the Christian Nobility” and many other such writings? To Calvin and the “Institutes”? Who interprets scripture authoritatively for you if not you yourself in the light of the Holy Spirit, as was the case for Luther, who rejected the teaching of the Roman Catholic Pope and bishops? You say that Lutherans do not indulge in private interpretation, but Luther himself certainly did so. Do you defer to Luther’s teaching, then? Why should I privilege Luther’s teaching to that of the Roman Catholic Magisterium, even considering Luther’s towering intellect and religious genius, which I readily concede.

As for my remark about adopting a position and then looking to the scriptures for support, that is unfair to Luther, whose scriptural interpretation was sincere, I believe. I’m speaking more of modern evangelicals, who teach conflicting, even contrary positions, sometimes nonsensical positions in my view, yet argue that such positions are taught by scripture (yet seem to find that just about every Roman Catholic teaching is somehow not supported by a legitimate interpretation of scripture!). Perhaps that remark was unfair.

 

[joe370]

Hey Alan55…

I’m mystifies at your agreement that the Magisterium has the authority to interpret scripture and administer the sacraments. The question is (1) what constitutes the Magisterium and (2) what authority is held by the Magisterium in interpreting scripture and administering and regulating the sacraments.

That was a big question for me as a former non-Catholic.

Catholics hold that the Magisterium resides in the successors to the Apostles, that is, the bishops, and particularly with the bishops in communion with the Pope, the bishop of Rome, and not with each individual Christian.

Seems absolutely reasonable if the CC is the church founded by Jesus, which of course I now believe.

You say that Lutherans do not indulge in private interpretation, but Luther himself certainly did so.

That is true…

Do you defer to Luther’s teaching, then? Why should I privilege Luther’s teaching to that of the Roman Catholic Magisterium, even considering Luther’s towering intellect and religious genius, which I readily concede.

Another good question? Logically, it would be no different if Padre Pio or Augustine or Cyprian had broke away and expected others to defer to their teachings, outside the Magisterium.

 

[joe370]

Hey JohnnyReb…

Sorry I took so long to respond.

That’s cool; no need to rush…

I am not sure I can provide a real answer to the question as asked.

Okay…

On Pentecost, Christ’s Apostles were empowered by the Holy Spirit to spread the Gospel message, when the Holy Spirit came upon them. That same Holy Spirit is with the church (believers) today.

So the same holy spirit that was conferred upon the one church of Matthew 16, of the 1st century on Pentecost, forever guiding the church of the first century “into all truth,” continues to guide all of the churches, regardless of denomination, into all truth - today?

Although some non Catholics will sound like that with the death of the last apostle, boom, we had a Bible and that is all we need today to know the truth, you won’t hear me saying that or see me believing that. However, Christ said he would lead his church to all truth. In saying this, he was speaking to the Apostles specifically. I think both Catholics and Protestants agree that the entire deposit of faith was given once for all to the saints (Jude 3).

*“Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.” Jude 1:3
*

Well, the deposit of faith as we have it today, did not exist when Paul spoke those words, but I get your point. How does Christ, Who said he would lead His one church to all truth,* (in view of the fact that there are now hundreds of churches which, quite often diverge, doctrinally speaking)* - continue to guide all of these churches into all truth?

Its not that the scriptures we all the truth, but that any truth claim must be evaluated by them and be in harmony with them.

So, if, for example, 5 people from different churches disagree with one another regarding certain “truth claims”, those 5 people need only defer to scripture regarding their disagreements? What if, upon evaluation, those 5 people still disagree? Who or what has the God given authority to resolve their doctrinal differences? That, to me anyway, seems to be the crux of the problem regarding sola scriptura.

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;7593651]
I agree Jon; that is a good starting point. Which church in the world today, via council, can be trusted to rightly reflect scripture? We can’t really say all of them for there are conflicting interpretations of scripture. ML seems to lean toward the CC on occasion:

*“If the world lasts for a long time, it will again be necessary, on account of the many interpretations which are now given to the Scriptures, to receive the decrees of councils, and take refuge in them, in order to preserve the unity of faith.” Epis. ad. Zwingli (ap. Balmes, p. 423).
*

And I agree with Luther to this extent. The very reason your communion and mine have had so much growth in understanding of each other is precisely because the CC took steps toward ecumenism. Again, ISTM, those early councils could be the refuge we need to take, as they are, after scripture, the foundation of the faith. some may deny it, but I believe that true unity will eventually take place as Rome as the center of the faith.

It seems that ML wrote it more than a year after the Ninety-Five Theses, and, as far as I can tell, it was written as a result of ML’s meeting with Karl von Miltitz, who was attempting to reconcile ML with the pope, but it doesn’t appear that it was ever sent.

too bad. I wonder, then what Leo’s response might have been.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;7593744]
Jon, regarding the Catholic Church, you believe that the process for determining the canon was inspired by God, otherwise there would be some doubt as to the authenticity of scripture, and it certainly seems that the same inspiration would be required to decide on what books to include in the bible canon as was required to write the books in the first place, which is certainly in keeping with scripture:

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper,* to be with you forever…***

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.

Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Jon, do you believe that the CC continues to be inspired by God and therefore guided “into all truth” just as the CC was when determining the biblical canon in the 4th century?

Yes, Joe, but that does not exclude the reality that Orthodox are being led, or Lutherans or Anglicans, etc. The current state of the church Militant is that we just don’t agree on what that truth is - yet. Or at least, we don’t agree on how to express it in unity - yet.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

This alludes to the question: Whose job is it to interpret scripture? If not private, individual, then whose?

To what, or whom, does scripture belong?

Because when scripture is interpreted, it is for all of Christians, not just oneself. (Unless, of course, one believes in relative truth.)

The Church, not me or you. Currently, your communion and mine interpret it, in part, differently, or at least express our similar interpretations differently.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Alan55;7595332]When I call sola scriptura a “doctrine” I do not mean that it is a dogma, only that it is firmly held and taught. In Roman Catholic teaching, the idea that divine revelation is constituted by scripture and tradition is more than a practice, it is a true doctrine, authoritatively taught by the Magisterium (although, I’m not sure that it’s considered an infallible dogma – perhaps others can confirm). Moreover, whether a doctrine or simply a practice, my point was that sola scriptura does not have a firm basis in scripture.

Orthodoxy, Alan, claims hold to the same tradition and scripture. Whom should I believe? Short of unity, where do I turn?

You are correct to point out that the Lutherans and Episcopalians retain two sacraments, and their understanding of those sacraments is similar (not identical) to that of Roman Catholics. I erroniously collapsed all protestants into the “merely symbolic” camp, which better characterizes Zwingli, Calvin and the Anabaptists and their progeny. Modern-day evangelicals in the U.S. fall in this camp, for example. However, the role of apostolic succession is an important aspect of the Catholic understanding of the role of sacraments as a source of unity and continuity in “one…apostolic” Church. That sense is lost or depreciated in even the most sacramental of protestant churches.

Well, I as a Lutheran claim three - Baptism, Eucharist, and Confession/Holy Absolution, but I do not diminish the importance of the other 4 that Catholics hold to.

I’m mystifies at your agreement that the Magisterium has the authority to interpret scripture and administer the sacraments.

Why? where would Catholics turn, if not to the Magisterium? And why would I hold to a notion that Catholic sacraments are not valid? When you go to confession, or receive the Eucharist at a Catholic Church, you are in fact receiving Absolution, and the true and substantial body and blood of Christ respectively.

The question is (1) what constitutes the Magisterium and (2) what authority is held by the Magisterium in interpreting scripture and administering and regulating the sacraments. Catholics hold that the Magisterium resides in the successors to the Apostles, that is, the bishops, and particularly with the bishops in communion with the Pope, the bishop of Rome, and not with each individual Christian. Each person must, of course, read, seek to understand, and to apply the scriptures, rightly understood, to their peculiar circumstances. However, as a Catholic, I must defer to the authority of the Pope and my bishop when they provide an authoritative interpretation of the scriptures.

In Lutheranism, for example, what constitutes the Magisterium? Luther, the author of various catechisms, treatises such as the “Babylonian Captivity,” “Freedom of the Christian” and “To the Christian Nobility” and many other such writings? To Calvin and the “Institutes”? Who interprets scripture authoritatively for you if not you yourself in the light of the Holy Spirit, as was the case for Luther, who rejected the teaching of the Roman Catholic Pope and bishops? You say that Lutherans do not indulge in private interpretation, but Luther himself certainly did so. Do you defer to Luther’s teaching, then? Why should I privilege Luther’s teaching to that of the Roman Catholic Magisterium, even considering Luther’s towering intellect and religious genius, which I readily concede.

No, not Luther. Luther was a man. We defer to scripture and to the Lutheran Confessions, as we view them as right reflections of scripture. The documents you reference, except the Small and Large Catechisms, may or may not reflect anything more than his opinions. As a Catholic, you should not privilege anything not approved by the Magisterium. I, OTOH, accept what the Magisterium taught in the early councils, when the Church was unified.

As for my remark about adopting a position and then looking to the scriptures for support, that is unfair to Luther, whose scriptural interpretation was sincere, I believe. I’m speaking more of modern evangelicals, who teach conflicting, even contrary positions, sometimes nonsensical positions in my view, yet argue that such positions are taught by scripture (yet seem to find that just about every Roman Catholic teaching is somehow not supported by a legitimate interpretation of scripture!). Perhaps that remark was unfair.

Not a problem, and I appreciate your respectful tone toward Luther.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

Yes, Joe, but that does not exclude the reality that Orthodox are being led, or Lutherans or Anglicans, etc. The current state of the church Militant is that we just don’t agree on what that truth is - yet. Or at least, we don’t agree on how to express it in unity - yet.

Absolutely!!! It does not exclude the reality that Orthodox are being led, or Lutherans or Anglicans, etc. Jon, I think we agree that the heavenly church triumphant no longer needs any guidance, regarding truth, so the question remains: is truth, in the church militant still accessible, as it was when Jesus’ church militant was still one, in a world where the church militant is now comprised of not just one church but many separated churches, which quite often, diverge, doctrinally speaking? You had mentioned that the HS continues to guide the church militant into all truth; how is that possible in view of the fact, as you mentioned, many Christians, regardless of church affiliation, just don’t agree on what that truth is - yet?

Like I mentioned to Johnny, if, for example, 5 people from different churches disagree with one another regarding certain “truth claims,” those 5 people need only defer to scripture regarding their disagreements, when it comes to sola scriptura, with the exception of your view of SS; I am speaking in general. What if, upon evaluation, as I mentioned to Johnny, those 5 people still disagree? That doesn’t sound like the church militant being guided by the HS into all truth as per John 16, especially when you put the church militant in its proper context regarding its size and the division within. As a former non-Catholic (don’t like to use the word protestant) - I often wondered, who or what still has the God given authority to resolve the doctrinal differences that arise, in the church militant today? For me it is the CC and I believe your answer, (since the east west schism) - is no one church has the God given authority, as the one CC did prior to the east west schism, which leaves us with the practice of sola scriptura as the yardstick by which each and every church can measure, evaluate and resolve differences regarding truth, and that, to me anyway, as I mentioned to Johnny, really seems to be the crux of the problem regarding sola scriptura. It just seems totally unworkable anyway you slice it. But that’s just me; I am sure to others it seems totally workable. Perhaps I am missing something but thus far, I have yet to grasp what it is.

Ps, I to wonder what Leo’s response would have been, and what the outcome could have been if they could have met each other half way.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Hey JohnnyReb…

So the same holy spirit that was conferred upon the one church of Matthew 16, of the 1st century on Pentecost, forever guiding the church of the first century “into all truth,” continues to guide all of the churches, regardless of denomination, into all truth - today?

I am of the belief that most denominational differences arise of out theological speculation. When you speak of “the one church” I assume you mean the Catholic church. When you speak of “all the churches” I assume you mean Protestant denominations. I do not believe in churches. Like you, I only believe that Christ founded one church. Our difference lies in that how we see that one church. I do not see it as tied to one ecclesiastical institution. Its the similarities, not the differences, that make believers in all these institutions Christians. There is nothing more to reveal related to the Gospel. The Gospel message is the faith delivered once for all to the saints. The rest of it is fun stuff to argue about.

*“Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.” Jude 1:3
*

Well, the deposit of faith as we have it today, did not exist when Paul spoke those words, but I get your point. How does Christ, Who said he would lead His one church to all truth,* (in view of the fact that there are now hundreds of churches which, quite often diverge, doctrinally speaking)* - continue to guide all of these churches into all truth?

The idea here is that Christ would lead his church into all doctrinal truth. We the apostles themselves lead to the entire truth or not?

So, if, for example, 5 people from different churches disagree with one another regarding certain “truth claims”, those 5 people need only defer to scripture regarding their disagreements? What if, upon evaluation, those 5 people still disagree? Who or what has the God given authority to resolve their doctrinal differences? That, to me anyway, seems to be the crux of the problem regarding sola scriptura.

None of those people claim to be infallible. The scriptures tell us everything we need to know for salvation. Does you question deal with conflicting interpretations of something related to the Gospel message-or of one of the things that tend to divide Christians-such as soteriology, ecclesiaology and sacramental application. Its one thing to be in disagreement over whether we should baptize infants or not-its another to disagree whether Christians should be baptised or not.** I guess what I am trying to say is that it really depends on the nature of the disagreement as to whether its a problem or not.**

One thing that helped me come to the conclusion to accept infant baptism was to look across Christianity at all denominations, the history of the church and the like to see that the majority of Christian groups baptize their infants. Since truth is not always found by majority vote, I am able to look at historical praxis in regards to the practice as well.

 

[JonNC]

First, Joe, I apologize if my interjections somewhat derail what you are getting at with SS.

=joe370;7596449]
Absolutely!!! It does not exclude the reality that Orthodox are being led, or Lutherans or Anglicans, etc. Jon, I think we agree that the heavenly church triumphant no longer needs any guidance, regarding truth,

Yes, we agree.

so the question remains: is truth, in the church militant still accessible, as it was when Jesus’ church militant was still one, in a world where the church militant is now comprised of not just one church but many separated churches, which quite often, diverge, doctrinally speaking? You had mentioned that the HS continues to guide the church militant into all truth; how is that possible in view of the fact, as you mentioned, many Christians, regardless of church affiliation, just don’t agree on what that truth is - yet?

Of course it is, given the power of the Holy Spirit. The first step may need to be unification of east and west. That’s not to say there won’t always be groups or individuals that diverge.
But guidance, as I think we agree, is an ongoing thing, not a finite one-time event. Let’s say, for example, the ongoing discussions between our communions were to result in reconciliation. When would you say that guiding into all truth took place? Only when Lutherans and Catholics come to reconciliation? Or was it taking place through all the time it took to get us there?

Like I mentioned to Johnny, if, for example, 5 people from different churches disagree with one another regarding certain “truth claims,” those 5 people need only defer to scripture regarding their disagreements, when it comes to sola scriptura, with the exception of your view of SS; I am speaking in general. What if, upon evaluation, as I mentioned to Johnny, those 5 people still disagree? That doesn’t sound like the church militant being guided by the HS into all truth as per John 16, especially when you put the church militant in its proper context regarding its size and the division within.

The guidance is still there, isn’t it? It wouldn’t stop simply because people didn’t respond to it. You agreed earlier that the Spirit still guides Lutherans, for example. As there has been no major breakthroughs recently, does that mean the Spirit’s guidance was suspended?

As a former non-Catholic (don’t like to use the word protestant) - I often wondered, who or what still has the God given authority to resolve the doctrinal differences that arise, in the church militant today? For me it is the CC and I believe your answer, (since the east west schism) - is no one church has the God given authority, as the one CC did prior to the east west schism, which leaves us with the practice of sola scriptura as the yardstick by which each and every church can measure, evaluate and resolve differences regarding truth, and that, to me anyway, as I mentioned to Johnny, really seems to be the crux of the problem regarding sola scriptura. It just seems totally unworkable anyway you slice it. But that’s just me; I am sure to others it seems totally workable. Perhaps I am missing something but thus far, I have yet to grasp what it is.

Actually, I alluded to this earlier. I really believe the CC has taken its leadership role in the area of ecumenism. If, in fact, the CC has the one true authority, then that clearly is its role. Wouldn’t you say?

Ps, I to wonder what Leo’s response would have been, and what the outcome could have been if they could have met each other half way.

Half way, like somewhere in the Alps?
Since they didn’t, would you not say that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is still for us to respond to today, in a way that they didn’t?

Jon